Plaintiff Lydia Jaynes was sexually assaulted in the parking garage of her apartment complex, which are owned by the defendant Palm Garden Group. Plaintiff filed a negligence-based cause of action against Palm Gardens Group, alleging that the assault would have not happened but for the malfunctioning security gate. Defendant is entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff fails to show a triable issue of material fact.
A. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Lydia Jaynes resided at the Palm Garden Apartments (Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts (SS) No. 2) she was sexually assaulted and beaten (SS No. 1) in the underground parking garage (SS No. 2). On November 1, 2011, Lydia Jayne started living at the Palm Garden Apartment (SS No. 2) and what drew her there was the
…show more content…
10). Since when she arrived and until now she’s had a problem with her emotional state (SS No. 10). After the accident, Jaynes left the apartment and was living with her friend, until she found another apartment (SS No. 10).
II. PALM GARDENS GROUP IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF HAS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF HER CLAIM AND NO TRIABLE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT.
Code of Civil Procedure, section 437c, provides that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, when there is no triable issue as to a material fact. Also, Code of Civil Procedure, section 437o (1) states that “a cause of action has no merit if, one or more of the elements of the cause of action cannot be separately established, even if that element is separately pleaded.” In other words, a summary judgment is appropriate when one or more of the elements is missing in the action.
The plaintiff has failed to show that there is a triable issue as to a material fact. Here, the plaintiff alleges that but for the defendant’s negligence in not fixing the gate, the plaintiff received the
Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
Although the plaintiff’s car was stolen, the court held that the wording of the exclusion clause was satisfactory in covering the negligence that occurred and clearly denied the parking station of any liability towards the plaintiff. If it is found that ‘loss’ equates to damages, it can be assumed that the valet parking service holds no liability for the damage to Kati’s
The second issue is whether or not the defendant has an obligation to reimburse for an injury. The outcome of this second issue depends whether or not it is rational for the defendant to have to pa...
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
Crowell Academy, Inc. and Arturo Gomez, (hereinafter, collectively “Crowell”) were grossly negligent and used willful misconduct in their responsibilities involving the fencing club. The bargaining power of Crowell was so grossly unequal so as to put Lajuana Barnett at the mercy of Crowell’s negligence. Lastly, the exculpatory clause contained in the release form (see release form) is void as against public policy. Consequently, under Maryland law, it is up to the trier of fact to determine if the exculpatory clause is unenforceable. As such, there is a dispute as to the genuine issue of material fact related to Crowell’s Answer, Crowell can be liable to Lajauna Barnett for negligence, and Crowell is not entitled to Summary Judgment as a matter of law.
Lisa stated this morning at the listed location; she set up a yard sale table, along with several other neighbors. During the set-up process, the accused, Marion Wagner, approached her advising her she was not able to set up the table. Lisa advised she was able to be here since it’s on the sidewalk and that she wouldn't be any more than a few hours here. Lisa stated that Marion approached her, got up in her face, and then struck her in with a closed fist. Lisa then fell to the ground and started to bleed from her nose. Lisa is herein referred to as the victim. It's to be noted that Lisa refused any medical attention.
The movie “A Civil Action” released on January 8, 1999 provides viewers with an extraordinary story of the nightmare that occurred in Woburn Massachusetts in the late 1970’s. The people of this small town at the time had no idea what was going on until there were various cases of Leukemia in small children that ultimately resulted in the early passing of them. The people eventually had gone to find out that the drinking water in this small town was contaminated and there were many women that stepped in to get answers. This movie is a tremendously jaw dropping, eye opening account of a heartbreaking true story incident. There are various elements of negligence in this movie including, duty, legal cause, proximate cause and damages.
there must have been a wrongful act committed and the plaintiff must have suffered. (Cannell)
In conclusion, Mrs. Barrett suffered from many years of abuse from her husband. She finally snapped and shot Mr. Barrett, killing him. She did this because in self- defense and beyond reasonable doubt that he would have killed her. She also should be able to claim Battered Woman 's Syndrome because she went through the stages of abuse and meets the qualifications of a battered woman described in Leslie McGuire’s book. In the end, Mrs. Barrett should have Leslie McGuire testify because she is very experienced and widely known, she has heard and counseled people in over 300 cases. . She is a reliable person with good intentions and will only help the case. I hope that you make the right decision today, Thank you.
Using this claim she was hoping to sue for actual damages. In the book The Legal Environment of Business Melvin stated “ In order to recover in to recover in a negligence case, the tortfeasor must have caused another party actual damages. This means that means that the party alleging injury must prove that she suffered some type of physical harm derived from an injury caused by the tortfeasor” (Melvin, 277). She brought her story to the court to prove this.
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
Did the court find specific performance to be an adequate legal remedy in this case?
The plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to act reasonably, that the defendant failed to fulfill that obligation, that the breach of duty caused the plaintiffs injuries, and that the plaintiff suffered some sort of injury. In order to prove that the defendant was negligent and therefore liable for their injuries, the plaintiff must prove all of the elements which are duty, breach, proximate cause, and damages. For instance, one of the elements is damages, meaning the plaintiff must have suffered damages (injuries, loss, etc.) in order for the defendant to be held liable. So even if you can prove that the defendant indeed acted negligently, you may not collect damages if you didn't suffer any injuries. The law will not hold a defendant liable for every injury to the plaintiff but only for those injuries that are proven and directly related to a breach of a
Review the scenario below. Consider the legal principles influencing the likelihood of any successful action against Steve in negligence.